4 ms·

Do you think billionaires would just stop and let the system collect their money? My first thought is they would just donate all ownership over the cap to famil

Do you think billionaires would just stop and let the system collect their money? My first thought is they would just donate all ownership over the cap to family members. They could probably continue this forever before every family member gains $1B

newen 6y ago
Seems perfectly fine to me. Gifts are taxed in the US. If it causes resulting problems, deal with it then. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  How is this considered "good" in this scenario? Income is taxed anyway. So how to rerouting money away from "taxed income" to "taxed gifts" help anything?
  - IanCal 6y ago
    It would mean that income is taxed twice or equivalent to it being taxed higher. Under a core assumption here that the tax revenue is used to help, this is better than it not happening. More importantly though, it's not a precise tax plan it's intended to show the absurdity of the outcome we currently have rather than show a particular way out. That the answers are often "but there would be loopholes" rather than "having people amass much more wealth is inherently good for us all" is telling.
  - 8note 6y ago
    This wealth might not be accumulated through income, and thus not taxed as income?
mcintyre1994 6y ago
Couldn’t you just cap non-charitable gifts to something like $1 million lifetime per recipient in that case? I doubt that’d be particularly controversial with anyone who isn’t a multi-millionaire, unless I’m missing something.
- IanCal 6y ago
  Or cap them on the donor.
IanCal 6y ago
Perhaps missed the end of the comment there. Edit - though, they do. They already do. Not at the same level but they do let the government take their money. And also, how else would they increase their score on the next level?
8note 6y ago
That's still a better outcome though? The result is that wealth is distributed to more people

newen 6y ago

Seems perfectly fine to me. Gifts are taxed in the US. If it causes resulting problems, deal with it then. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good.

buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
How is this considered "good" in this scenario? Income is taxed anyway. So how to rerouting money away from "taxed income" to "taxed gifts" help anything?
- IanCal 6y ago
  It would mean that income is taxed twice or equivalent to it being taxed higher. Under a core assumption here that the tax revenue is used to help, this is better than it not happening. More importantly though, it's not a precise tax plan it's intended to show the absurdity of the outcome we currently have rather than show a particular way out. That the answers are often "but there would be loopholes" rather than "having people amass much more wealth is inherently good for us all" is telling.
- 8note 6y ago
  This wealth might not be accumulated through income, and thus not taxed as income?

mcintyre1994 6y ago

Couldn’t you just cap non-charitable gifts to something like $1 million lifetime per recipient in that case? I doubt that’d be particularly controversial with anyone who isn’t a multi-millionaire, unless I’m missing something.

IanCal 6y ago
Or cap them on the donor.

IanCal 6y ago

Perhaps missed the end of the comment there. Edit - though, they do. They already do. Not at the same level but they do let the government take their money. And also, how else would they increase their score on the next level?

8note 6y ago

That's still a better outcome though? The result is that wealth is distributed to more people